(curmudgeon mode) I know Tillich’s work all too well, and despise him. As I recall, he’s one of those who specifically rejected the rule of Scripture. Nothing good can come of that. (end mode)

This was one of the strangest things he ever wrote.

Don’t worry Ed, I’m not endorsing Tillich, although his definition of religion is rather useful, I think (“Religion is about being ultimately concerned”… etc.).

He didn’t write this, this is a satire on him, which is why I found it so funny. Like his actual work, it isn’t clear exactly what it is saying. It may say one thing, or it may say another. Just like the debate on whether Tillich was a monotheist, a pantheist or an atheist…

Well, the satire sounds so very much like Tillich’s existentialism, I wasn’t sure. Existentialism reaches back to Eastern mystical thought, but excludes accountability, and thus excludes the meaning of Covenant. Tillich was much closer to non-theist than anything else. He all but said God was just an extension of our global imagination.

Yeah, that’s the way I understand most of St. Hereticus’ (Robert Brown) satires sound. I was referred to the book “The Writings of St. Hereticus” yesterday in a discussion about Karl Barth, since he apparently nailed Barth’s style as well. I picked up a copy of the book on Amazon last night for $1.69.

At any rate, you are right, which is why I thought it was so amusing. Tillich knew how to make saying nothing sound profound. Just again to be clear, I don’t agree with him. I’ve just run into his thought enough to make me appreciate a good satire of it.

Hey, stop back-pedaling! I appear grumpy enough without it.

Hehe… OK, Ed. I’ll forward pedal again. Just for you, I think I’ll post a bit more serious topic on Tillich, so you should be able to bring out the curmudgeon mode again.